The Hungarian Academy of Sciences at 200: thought leaders discuss a more cohesive European Research Area on day three of the conference

In the first plenary session, various speakers discussed what is to be expected in terms of challenges for the 2028–2034 EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Joerg Niehoff, Deputy Head of Unit of the European Research Area, presented the European Research Area pillar of the European Union’s flagship research and innovation programme, Horizon Europe, which is set to continue into its next phase (2028–2034) with an ambitious budget of €175 billion. Building on its predecessor’s success, the renewed framework aims to enhance scientific excellence, competitiveness and innovation across member states – while addressing persistent disparities in research participation and strengthening collaboration across Europe.

At the heart of Horizon Europe lies a streamlined legislative and financial framework designed to foster world-class science and inclusive growth. The programme’s structure will largely follow its predecessors and will be based on four central pillars: Excellent Science, Competitiveness and Society, Innovation and European Research Area. These pillars will receive €44.1 billion, €75.9 billion, €38.8 billion and €16.2 billion respectively.

The legislative proposals for Horizon Europe are divided into two main titles. Title I defines the framework programme itself, outlining general provisions and thematic chapters on science, competitiveness, innovation and the European Research Area (ERA). Title II details the rules for participation and dissemination, including the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the grants architecture. A new Performance Framework will help track and evaluate outcomes across all EU research and innovation activities.

A key goal for the 2028–2034 framework is to make participation simpler and faster. Application procedures will be streamlined, reporting obligations reduced, and lump-sum grants are to be used by default to ease the administrative load. The long-standing consortium model remains, reinforcing the EU’s commitment to collaborative research.

Encouragingly, participation from widening countries has shown steady growth. Success rates now stand at 18.6% for widening countries compared with 19.6% for others, while 80% of collaborative projects now include widening participants. Over half of all newcomers to the programme (52.4%) come from these countries – a strong indicator of progress.

Joerg Niehoff and Lidia Borrell-Damian Photo: mta.hu
(For more photos click the picture!)

The widening provisions proposed for Horizon Europe (2028–2034) aim to strengthen research capacity and cohesion across the EU by supporting countries with comparatively lower R&I performance. The proposal distinguishes between two groups of eligible Member States – widening countries and transition countries – based on their Innovation Scoreboard Index and financial return per Gross National Income. Only entities established in these countries may coordinate projects under the “widening participation and spreading excellence” component, with associated countries and outermost regions included under specific conditions. The framework introduces targeted measures such as capacity building, knowledge valorisation, networking support and dedicated National Contact Points, with access to certain measures becoming conditional from 2030 onwards on increased national investment in R&D.

The Specific Programme prioritises the reduction of disparities between stronger and weaker R&I performers through actions that build scientific capacity, improve connectivity between research actors, and encourage structural reforms at the national and regional levels. These reforms include enhancing the attractiveness of research careers, supporting internationalisation, strengthening institutional governance, and improving alignment with wider EU initiatives. Overall, the widening provisions seek to enable broader geographical participation in excellent research, promote long-term investment in scientific development, and contribute to the wider EU target of investing at least 3% of GDP in research and development.

Lidia Borrell-Damian, Secretary General of Science Europe, followed by providing some perspective on challenges for the 2028–2034 EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10), highlighting that the proposals for these initiatives outline a vision of evolution rather than radical overhaul.

Science Europe’s position emphasises the need for a reliable, transparent and ringfenced budget for research and innovation. It argues for better strategic alignment between national, regional and EU funds, alongside renewed efforts to encourage countries to invest 3% of GDP in R&I. The organisation also calls for a broader concept of competitiveness, one that extends beyond short-term economic gains to encompass sustainability, societal well-being and evidence-based policy. Within this, fundamental research is highlighted as essential: the independence of the European Research Council, the bottom-up nature of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, and the protection of scientific freedom are all presented as critical components of a healthy research system.

Given the proposed links between Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund, Science Europe stresses the importance of preserving the integrity and governance of research activities. R&I priorities, including Pillar II policy windows, should remain under Horizon Europe’s remit, with clear coordination tools and greater clarity on what ECF association would mean for collaborative research. The organisation also advocates for open and secure research collaboration, ensuring that security measures do not create unnecessary barriers with associated or like-minded countries. Building an inclusive European R&I landscape remains a key objective, with calls to support talent circulation, address the innovation gap and ensure that simplification measures do not dilute academic or ethical standards.

Science Europe’s position on the ERA Act reinforces these themes. It calls for a level playing field that supports research excellence and establishes an integrated, borderless market for research and innovation. Core values, including academic freedom, autonomy, equality, diversity, and inclusion and sustainability, must be explicitly protected, potentially through dedicated legislation. The Act should also incentivise higher national investment in R&I, targeting at least 1.25% of GDP in public funding. Finally, Science Europe urges legislators to strengthen research culture, promote open science and mobility, and ensure effective implementation by building on existing structures such as the ERA Forum rather than creating new administrative bodies.

Péter Hegyi, Director of the Academia Europaea (AE) Budapest Knowledge Hub, then provided some opening remarks before a panel discussion on how a more cohesive European Research Area can be achieved. A major strand of this mission is Curiosity to Career, which aims to guide secondary-school students towards scientific paths by giving them hands-on experience in laboratories and structured follow-up programmes. The initiative now reaches thousands of students through events in fields such as biomedical sciences and chemistry. Large gatherings – from the recent 1,700-student meeting in Szeged to an upcoming science fair expecting 4,000 attendees – underline the programme’s momentum, as does the participation of Ferenc Krausz, a Nobel prize winner.

Hegyi also stressed the importance of strengthening European scientific excellence through improved training, support for young researchers, and initiatives promoting women’s participation, led by colleagues such as Katalin Solymosi. He argued that a cohesive European Research Area requires targeted policies rather than assumptions that progress will occur automatically. Disparities in national R&D spending and uneven access to ERC funding illustrate the scale of the challenge, with a small group of nine countries securing 80% of the grants. Persistent brain drain reflects these imbalances. Drawing on his own experience, Hegyi noted that dedicated schemes – such as the Wellcome Trust International Research Development Award that enabled him to return to Hungary – can counteract this trend, whereas the absence of such measures would have kept him abroad. He concluded that bridging Europe’s widening scientific gap demands deliberate, well-designed policies rather than chance.